After putting up the online form in the early hours of Friday, Google received 12,000 requests across Europe, sometimes averaging 20 per minute, by late in the day, the company said.

Now, Google will have to sift through these entries to determine which requests exceed the bar set by the EU's data protection law. Despite being very adamant that European citizens have the right to be "forgotten," there's been very little determined in terms of the bright line between citizens' privacy and the public's right to know. Data protection authorities are supposed to meet next week to attempt to reach some sort of consensus. Meanwhile, the requests continue to pour in.

The web form is very straightforward, asking for country of origin, as well as a brief statement as to why the complainant feels each listed link should be removed. Those making requests are required to upload a copy of documents proving their identity, a safeguard against abuse and one that might generate second thoughts in a few requesters (especially if the request fails to meet the eventual applicable standards).

The plaintiff argued that the text snippet was clearly defamatory, even if the document in full wasn't. The court didn't buy it.

the undersigned Magistrate Judge has found no case that makes the precise claim that O’Kroley makes here—that the underlying information, viewed in its entirety, is not defamatory, but that it has been rendered defamatory by Google’s automated editing process that juxtaposed two sentence fragments in the snippet. Nevertheless, based upon the “robust” immunity afforded under Section 230, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that the editorial acts of Google creating the offensive search result are subject to statutory immunity. For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Google is immune from all claims in the complaint, and that Google’s motion to dismiss must be granted.

If you're looking to cleanse the web stateside, you don't really have many options beyond the court system, and there's no success guaranteed there, even if you have a more solid claim than O'Kroley's. But I'm not sure if there's any reason to be clamoring for a "right to be forgotten." Google's new service doesn't actually make content disappear. It simply removes it from its index. Other search engines will still be able to locate it, at least for the time being.

Beyond that, you have to consider the implications of putting the "keep/remove" decision in the hands of politicians and tech giants. Both can be incredibly self-serving. Neither truly has the best interests of the public in mind. The EU may be able to dictate Google's delistings, but at this point, it's not operating on anything more concrete than a gut feeling that there's something wrong with good people being linked to bad stuff. But it's an unrealistic goal. Good people will still be wrongly linked with bad stuff, and bad people will still get away with hiding evidence of their wrongdoing.

A lot of bad precedent has led to this decision -- like superinjunctions and defamation laws so easily abused, certain countries have become temporary "homes" for libel tourists. This push for specifically Google to operate a deliberately faulty search engine has been in the works for years, starting with cries about Google "enabling" piracy (and child pornography, etc.) by returning the search results it was asked to fetch, and culminating in this exercise in symbolic gestures: Google whitewashing search results while the troubling content remains undisturbed.

Beyond that, you have to consider the implications of putting the "keep/remove" decision in the hands of politicians and tech giants. Both can be incredibly self-serving. Neither truly has the best interests of the public in mind.

Anyone else think that the trolls will still continue to write this site off as a tech giant apologist site despite another notch of evidence indicating the contrary?

This is how Google will actually die

Eventually people of "good" taste will stop using google for these very reasons. They will switch to a search engine without all of these special redactions built into them.In 10 years stupid politicians will still be fighting with google about their search results, while real queries are run through some other new platform. Followed by 10 years after that this cycle happening AGAIN with the new engine.Repeat ad infinitum.

Re:

Your comment, typically, is nonsensical.

Google have been ordered to do something that's unworkable, will never have the effect desired of it and does nothing to address the actual problem. In response, it's done what it can to comply, even as it's obvious to anybody that this won't do the thing it's intended to do - but since the order is asking the impossible, they comply as best they can.

In other words, it's doing just what it normally does. Now, **AA supporters like to bitch and moan that Google are somehow unreasonable in asking them to fill out a similar form and/or that Google can't perfectly police content that not even **AA members themselves can correctly identify, but that doesn't mean they don't comply.

But, whatever Google do, they cannot remove the content from the internet, they can only ensure it's as difficult as possible to find with its own tool. Perhaps, once this is proven not to work in the way demanded of it, those in charge can stop pretending that Google is the internet and start addressing the actual problems?

Forwarded comment I saw on Dave Farber's "IP" list

"If the world's largest social networking site was ever a CIA program to get everybody to provide full details about their life at an incredibly low cost, this would be the next big thing: since it is too expensive to scour millions and millions of Web pages out there for things that people would rather hide from view, so why not ask people to point this out themselves and provide their full ID so as to make sure the information is source verified? What a lovely database that makes if you ever want to blackmail anyone.

If I were any kind of troll/marketer, I would start setting up bots to destroy the usability of the competition.

Like search for a feature of our company and just start spamming the links of competitor companies on that form until it's all gone. Naturally I must do this because I can also assume the competition is doing it to my own.

And at some point someone will point out how abuse-able this is, and put in some rules designed to stop the abuse... but it will lack teeth.

Holding a search engine responsible is the stupid way out. It does not remove the content, it just makes it "harder" to find... until you remember that Google isn't the only search engine.

Obviously they have learned nothing from the failure of the DMCA, or they have just believed the hype that this stupid idea actually works based on the climbing number of demands and ignoring how flawed many of the requests are.

It is stupid to hold Google responsible, giving them the requirement of solving someone elses problem for free. Imagine how few requests would be pouring in if there was a fee to make the request and a larger penalty if it failed to meet the requirements. The **AA's like to tout the number of requests they pour into Google, but ignore how many are truly flawed and it does nothing to remove the original content... imagine how much better that system would be if they had to pay a small fee for each request and pay a fine when they got it wrong. They might stop expecting a 3rd party to wave a wand and solve it, and do it themselves.

Re: Re:

Google simply making if as difficult as possible to find (as they do with child porn) is sufficient. I think everyone realizes that they can't "remove" it- just make it damn near impossible to find. That's good enough.

Re: Re: Re:

"The headline suggests that you are wrong. People seem to be voting "NO" at the rate of 1000+ per hour."

"Voting" is easy when you only have the choice to vote one way. Where's the form I fill in the say that this is a bunch of unworkable shite and I'd rather have the resources of Google and the EU government spent on something not only useful but also *possible*? Let me guess, you're one of the ACs who whines here every time the will of the people is translated into your comments being hidden?

Re: Re: Re:

this has happened because of good and bad people doing things they dont want to world and his wife knowing about. if it removes any info concerning a persons criminal behavior, particularly where children are concerned, it's gonna be really abused! the worrying thing to me is that this decision has been reached by a small group of people who are supposed to be the best legal minds in the EU! if that is the case, i'd hate to be tried by the worst! these people either haven't thought through what the result would be or didn't care, as long as the elite few are able to remove themselves from the public eye, screw what else happens! real dangerous view people, real dangerous. i sincerely hope that this was done just to get a preview of what would happen and that in the next meeting, the decision is reversed, for obvious reasons!!

Why worry about exceeding the courts 'bar'?

Why not just accept every request from the EU for 'forgetting' a link? Treat it like a DCMA notice and just drop the link from the EU index. The courts have indicated that the public has a 'right' to not be listed, but there's really no 'right' to be listed. That would make listing links pretty much manual for the EU, and let the content providers and individuals right it out in the EU courts amongst themselves. Google shouldn't have to spend too much time on it. Give the EU courts a tool where they can manage the index in EU however they want.

I don't have a problem with it,

but, I would require 2 changes. First all search engines and sites(facebook etc) have this as an option. Second, you have all Data removed about you, you don't get to select only the bad things. You loose it all.

Re: Why worry about exceeding the courts 'bar'?

Perhaps the ideal solution would be, for starters, for the internet to 'forget' France in its entirety. Once those nutters are invisible, then move on to the next complaining-est country and disappear it as well, and so on.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you wont mind me now taking defamation action against YOU then after alluding that I am a sheep etc etc..

Oh and remember I'm not in the USA and after discovery if I find you are in Europe you are basically fucked, if on the other hand I find out you are an American.. well good luck flying anywhere ;)

Oh and if you don't respond to this comment or you do with some sort of "your law cant affect me" (See Gutnick for how it can )I would really point you in the direction of your concluding statement about hypocrisy and being a shitbag.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you wont mind me now taking defamation action against YOU then after alluding that I am a sheep etc etc..

Oh and remember I'm not in the USA and after discovery if I find you are in Europe you are basically fucked, if on the other hand I find out you are an American.. well good luck flying anywhere ;)

Oh and if you don't respond to this comment or you do with some sort of "your law cant affect me" (See Gutnick for how it can )I would really point you in the direction of your concluding statement about hypocrisy and being a shitbag.

Ooooooo.... I'm scared now. Don't forget to add the fact that I invited you to, "suck it" to your list of charges.

Re:

Its actually worse for Google than that: if it bends its head low enough it will be replaced with a search engine that wont try to edit any of its results. And since Google has already bent its head its easier to put a boot on top and push down. If Google does not reverse its direction it will be obsolete in 10 years and it does not have a short term reason not to bend its head.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

'Nuke it from orbit'

I've seen it mentioned a few times, but the best way for Google to fight something this insane is to go the nuclear route. If they get a 'valid' submission, in this case one that comes with verified personal identification, they should remove all links to the person/agency in question, 'just in case'.

Maybe if people suddenly find that, at least according to Google, they flat out don't exist after filing to have that one/two/bunch of embarrassing things no longer listed, maybe then they'll actually put some thought into this, not to mention the money and time it would save Google(because, who exactly is paying for this new 'service' they've been forced to offer?).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

My, my, such a visceral reaction. Obviously that comes from your (well-deserved) Australian inferiority complex. I guess that being the spawn of criminals and being bested by the British at every turn, leaves you to lash out at your betters from a deep-seated sense of worthlessness and frustration. Perhaps you'll be able to get past it one day, mate. Until then, we'll all continue a good laugh at your expense.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I'm not the one sniveling"

No, but you do appear to be the one with a persecution complex, and probably won't exercise whatever intellect you actually posses to see the link between your childish profane tantrum and the resulting desire for adults to hide said comment. You're not even pretending to address the point in hand.

It's not the outright lying that gets you in trouble, it's the way you choose to act like a toddler having a tantrum while lying your ass off. Yet again - when you grow up, you might work out the nuance in the arguments actually being made. Until then, expect your strawmen and tantrums to be met with the derision they deserve.

Re: 'Nuke it from orbit'

"Maybe if people suddenly find that, at least according to Google, they flat out don't exist after filing [...]"

Why, exactly, is that a problem? You do realize that there was a time that NONE of us existed according to Google, because Google itself didn't exist, don't you?

We and the rest of the Internet got along just fine without them. If they vanished tomorrow, we'd get along just fine without them too.

I'd be perfectly happy to disappear from Google and from the numerous social network sites I'm "on" thanks to friends and colleagues who handed them information about me without bothering to ask and from various halfass indexing services that carry information about me that's 20 years out of date and so on. I'm pretty sure I'll still exist even if all that crap disappears.

Re: Re: 'Nuke it from orbit'

The problem comes when you've got public information that the ones making the claims didn't post being pulled.

Politicians that would really love it if an embarrassment or past deed of theirs wasn't able to be found, businesses that would quite like negative articles and/or critical reviews removed or hidden, stuff like that.

In cases like that, you've got a public interest in allowing the information to remain public, as the reputation, or history of a person or group is quite likely to have an effect on the public, allowing them to make informed decision, on say who to vote for, or which business to purchase from or use the services of.

Your comment also brought up a secondary concern, that of 'How do you treat information which wasn't posted by the one making the claim?' The data on you for example, was provided and gathered by third parties, so the question is does the fact that it's about you also give you control over it?

Barring outright libel/slander type situations, where you're dealing with blatantly false information intended to attack someone, that's not really an easy question to answer there, and personally I'd lean towards 'No', as it's leaning a bit too much towards the idea of being able to dictate what others can say about you, not a pleasant idea for those that believe strongly in freedom of speech.

Re: Re: Right to Know

Oh Gwiz...I guess you missed it.Third paragraph from the top.

Now, Google will have to sift through these entries to determine which requests exceed the bar set by the EU's data protection law. Despite being very adamant that European citizens have the right to be "forgotten," there's been very little determined in terms of the bright line between citizens' privacy and the public's right to know.

Where does this "right" come from.I'm part of the public and I don't have a "right" to know anything about you, nor you I.I don't think it's silly at all to find out why everyone thinks there is a right to know.Just who or what is it that confers this right.Frankly I think it's just a catch phrase that journalist like to throw around.

Re: Re: Re: Right to Know

Your question implies that there has to be some document somewhere that "grants" us a right in order for it to be a right. In the US, anyway, that's not the case at all.

In the US, the right is inherent and a logical extension of our form of government. It is impossible to have anything close to a democratic form of government if the public doesn't know what is happening.

Re: Re: Re: Right to Know

Where does this "right" come from.I'm part of the public and I don't have a "right" to know anything about you, nor you I.

In addition to what John said, there are certain viable reasons for a right to know that don't necessarily involve the government, public safety being one of them. For example, most believe they have the right to know when a convicted pedophile moves into their neighborhood or next door to their kid's school.

And I tend to agree with you that this phrase gets tossed about a bit too freely, but like I said above, it really doesn't apply here since we are talking about information that is already public and widely disseminated. We aren't talking about my right to know what you had for breakfast, but more along the lines of my right to revisit a newspaper article that accurately list all of your DUI's over the years.